Thanks for this thoughtful post, Christine. I think you have it exactly right.

I believe the purpose of the "writing across curriculum" movement was to increase the amount of writing exercises for students by adding reading/writing to other non-traditional "writing" courses such as math and science. However, this movement did not entail putting an end to separate, discreet English courses.
I agree with your statement indicating that we should incorporate additional writing and analysis skills into all law school courses. But, we should not cut legal writing courses because these courses traditionally teach skills (citation, legal research, and composition) that other professors are not expected/able to cover due to time/subject constraints.

I hope that we have not forgotten that law students in the United States are graduate students. We should demand a certain minimal standard of competence in writing. So the need for separate legal writing at the law school level is not the same as the need for freshman composition classes in college, where almost nothing is assumed. As for the nuts and bolts of legal writing (e.g., citation and legal research), does this really require a freestanding department within the law school? I suspect we could do just fine with some basic training sessions coupled with writing assignments.

Thanks for commenting, Sara. You're absolutely correct that Writing Across the Curriuculum never anticipated an end to stand-alone writing classes, and I don't think anyone at the Erasing Lines conference anticipated the elimination of LRW classes either (or at least out loud) until I got the microphone! But I thought it would be interesting to break out of our comfort zone and consider rethinking "our" curriculum (the LRW curriculum) during a conference that was focused on changes that other professors needed to make in their courses. I continue to think that this is an interesting dialogue, and I hope that everyone who was able to cheerfully and creatively debate me at the 2001 conference will have confidence that Gordon is also attempting to think out of the box in pure good faith.

Christine, I completely agree with that sentiment that we should promote dialogue and "think outside the box." I welcome this line of dialogue and I hope to see other opinions posted as well.

And--congrats on the new addition to your family!

I did some legal writing time, and I thought it was both a very useful course for students (though I know they don't always think so), and a lot of work - both for the writers of the papers and those grading and giving feedback on them. It's more work than tenured professors are used to doing, I think. Which doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. But maybe doing it would speed the move towards TAs or graders.

Lawyers write for a living, and good ones never cease searching for ways to refine the art. Law firms are desperate to hire law school grads who have any clue about how to write. A law school that does not have mandatory writing coursework in its curriculum is unworthy of the name.

And what of "quantitative methods" teaching in law schools? First, it is not at all a new trend. Second, as a pedagogical aim, law schools have no business dabbling in teaching that the B-schools are much better suited to deliver.

If law schools want to screw around with "quantitative methods," let them offer such a course of study through an LLM program, where the consumers get to choose whether to enroll, and those who do most likely have other education, training, or experience that will make the exercise worthwhile. In contrast, stuffing "quantitative methods" down the throats of JD candidates, as a one-size-fits-all proposition, is unresponsive to market demands and does nothing to turn out better law school grads.

Jake,

You write “law schools have no business dabbling in teaching that the B-schools are much better suited to deliver,” referring generally to “‘quantitative methods’ teaching in law schools.’”

Is accounting within this category? If so, note that the knowledge of accounting that most lawyers require is better taught through tailored materials designed for the law school curriculum, which can differ considerably from that taught in university accounting departments. The same is true for finance courses (corporate or real estate, for example).

Also, I am not aware of a general requirement among law schools for such courses that results in “stuffing” them ‘down the throats” of any students “as a one-size-fits-all proposition.” Further, “market demands” for lawyers possessing some knowledge of accounting and finance as it relates to law practice are manifest and, at least for transactional lawyers, contributes to “better law school grads.”

Lawrence --

I appreciate your views, but you apparently have not suffered through a law school curriculum that sought to teach the students proficiency in "quantitative methods," including accounting.

I'd be pleased to debate accounting with you any day of the week. I am a licensed CPA, and have been for many years.

Early on, I learned how to do calculus on a slide rule. Later on, to earn my business degree, I learned how to do linear regression and other statistical methods with no more than a piece of paper and a pencil.

A number of years back, I decided to go to a "law and econ" law school with the idea that it might be interesting.
The law part was. The "econ" part was simply insufferable, verging on moronic.

Being patient, I tolerated the ordeal, got a law degree, and have practiced the noble profession of law ever since.

All that said, I stand by my original statement, but will offer a qualification. If law schools wish to offer coursework that links the practice of law with quantitative methods, let them do so through specialized LLM programs, not a general JD curriculum. Trying to stuff quantitative methods instruction into a JD curriculum cheats the consumer. Tailoring such instruction to folks who want an LLM (and thus have a demonstrably higher pain threshold), is a much more marketable proposition, albeit to a narrower clientele.